I'm not against taking a tight end in the first or second rounds. If we are going to draft a TE I'd rather it be the best TE in the draft.

It does make sense because next year TE will be a gaping hole as well when Gonzo retires. Better take advantage of the fact that he's here another year and draft his heir.

If we get Eifert, I would be a little pissed, and I predict the end of Nolan. If they get another offensive weapon while ingoring the glaring obvious need on D, why in the hell would Nolan stay in 2014? Most people on this board predict another winning record, if not a playoff berth. Does anyone think there will be little to no interest, given this year?

Here's the way I see it. We have boxed ourselves in, and our first pick needs to be either a DE or a CB.No offense to Eifert, but everyone is calling him the new Jason Witten. First, this draft has plenty of decent TE's that we could pick up in the 2nd. If Eifert falls that far ( and I dont think he would get past Miami ) then okay, but trading up or using our first pick is a mistake.

Im not knocking the guy. He is big and fast, with good hands. But he isn't the best blocker, and we already know TG wont block. Plus, I dont cotton to the idea that TG would help mentor this guy. TG will not even be at most of the camp, and when he shows up he will be more focused on his last year, not playing 'coach'. I dont blame him for that, he has earned it. Plus, it's easier to look like a giant killer when you play against Navy,Purdue and Pitt. Pu that guy in the SEC and lest see how well he does.

In short, I trust TD but not picking D with #30 is a huge mistake. There are really good TE's in the 2nd if we ABSOLUTELY have to draft a TE. just sayin'

Plus, it's easier to look like a giant killer when you play against Navy,Purdue and Pitt. Pu that guy in the SEC and lest see how well he does.

You probably didn't watch the National Championship Game then. Eifert was one of the few Notre Dame players that didn't look overmatched by the competition.

And your argument about this draft having plenty of decent TEs after Rd 1 also applies to DE and CB. There are probably only 5 TEs that will be Top 100 picks, while there are around 15 or 16 edge rushers and CBs (each) that will go in that same span.

Let's not act like Notre Dame's schedule was for patsies, Oklahoma, USC, Miami, Michigan, Michigan State, and Stanford were all on their schedule, not exactly schools that traditionally are lacking in NFL talent. Now, if you wanted to make that argument for say Travis Kelce, I would certainly concur.

Plus, it's easier to look like a giant killer when you play against Navy,Purdue and Pitt. Pu that guy in the SEC and lest see how well he does.

You probably didn't watch the National Championship Game then. Eifert was one of the few Notre Dame players that didn't look overmatched by the competition.

And your argument about this draft having plenty of decent TEs after Rd 1 also applies to DE and CB. There are probably only 5 TEs that will be Top 100 picks, while there are around 15 or 16 edge rushers and CBs (each) that will go in that same span.

Let's not act like Notre Dame's schedule was for patsies, Oklahoma, USC, Miami, Michigan, Michigan State, and Stanford were all on their schedule, not exactly schools that traditionally are lacking in NFL talent. Now, if you wanted to make that argument for say Travis Kelce, I would certainly concur.

I think you missed my point. In order to get Eifert, they will have to trade up, or take him at #30. If he falls to the second round go for it. But, our first pick needs to be an immediate contributor at a position of need. TE (this year) is not a position of need. Next year, yes. We have TG and Coffman. That will get us through. But we need a DE or a CB because we only have one ( Osi and Samuels) and if one of those goes down, were screwed. If TG goes down (which is very unlikely) we still have Roddy, Julio, SJax, HD and Coffman. But we lose one of our DE or CB and were in big trouble.

And everyone is aware that the SEC is the most dominant conference in college football, period, end of story. Im not saying the guy would suck, but Notre Dame doesn't even play in a conference, and if they strictly played in the SEC, they would not even make the Championship game.

I think you missed my point. In order to get Eifert, they will have to trade up, or take him at #30. If he falls to the second round go for it. But, our first pick needs to be an immediate contributor at a position of need. TE (this year) is not a position of need. Next year, yes. We have TG and Coffman. That will get us through. But we need a DE or a CB because we only have one ( Osi and Samuels) and if one of those goes down, were screwed. If TG goes down (which is very unlikely) we still have Roddy, Julio, SJax, HD and Coffman. But we lose one of our DE or CB and were in big trouble.

And everyone is aware that the SEC is the most dominant conference in college football, period, end of story. Im not saying the guy would suck, but Notre Dame doesn't even play in a conference, and if they strictly played in the SEC, they would not even make the Championship game.

I keep hearing how people say that DE is a position of need that is more immediate than other spots. Why? My feeling is that everybody and their mother seems to think Kroy Biermann has no business starting for this team. And they feel like a good DE will come in right away and relegate Kroy from someone that will play 700-800 snaps a year to a guy that may only play about 300-400 (about as much as Anderson played back in 2010).

First off, I think people underestimate Kroy. Secondly, I think people underestimate how much Nolan likes Kroy. And thirdly, I think people probably overestimate how NFL ready most rookie defensive ends are.

I find it hilarious that most of the fan base is down on Kroy Biermann, yet seem to think Corey Peters is fine at DT. But I know exactly why that is. Biermann is only a 3-5 sack guy, and unless a guy gets 8+ sacks, then people will ALWAYS view that DE is not good enough. And if Corey Peters makes 1 or 2 INTs over the course of 2.5 seasons, he'll get a pass.

But anyway, you might be able to draft this DE like Bjoern Werner or Tank Carradine and he might become the next Ryan Kerrigan or Brandon Graham. Or you could draft him and he could be the next Robert Ayers.

As for Eifert, you're right he's not going to come in and set the world on fire. He's going to only play about 300-400 snaps this year as a rookie. But what he is, assuming he gets comfortable in the offense fairly quickly is a better 4th option in the passing game than Harry Douglas. And when Gonzalez walks away next year, he's going to be the starter, and very well could be as good as Gonzalez was here in ATL in the very near future.

He's no Gronk? If you had seen Gronk play at Arizona and then watched Eifert play at Notre Dame, then I think you might realize there isn't a lot of difference. For the record, Eifert is the highest rated TE prospect I've had since Gronk. IIRC I gave Gronk a draft grade of 7.2, while Eifert gets a 7.0 from me.

I think you missed my point. In order to get Eifert, they will have to trade up, or take him at #30. If he falls to the second round go for it. But, our first pick needs to be an immediate contributor at a position of need. TE (this year) is not a position of need. Next year, yes. We have TG and Coffman. That will get us through. But we need a DE or a CB because we only have one ( Osi and Samuels) and if one of those goes down, were screwed. If TG goes down (which is very unlikely) we still have Roddy, Julio, SJax, HD and Coffman. But we lose one of our DE or CB and were in big trouble.

And everyone is aware that the SEC is the most dominant conference in college football, period, end of story. Im not saying the guy would suck, but Notre Dame doesn't even play in a conference, and if they strictly played in the SEC, they would not even make the Championship game.

I keep hearing how people say that DE is a position of need that is more immediate than other spots. Why? My feeling is that everybody and their mother seems to think Kroy Biermann has no business starting for this team. And they feel like a good DE will come in right away and relegate Kroy from someone that will play 700-800 snaps a year to a guy that may only play about 300-400 (about as much as Anderson played back in 2010).

First off, I think people underestimate Kroy. Secondly, I think people underestimate how much Nolan likes Kroy. And thirdly, I think people probably overestimate how NFL ready most rookie defensive ends are.

I find it hilarious that most of the fan base is down on Kroy Biermann, yet seem to think Corey Peters is fine at DT. But I know exactly why that is. Biermann is only a 3-5 sack guy, and unless a guy gets 8+ sacks, then people will ALWAYS view that DE is not good enough. And if Corey Peters makes 1 or 2 INTs over the course of 2.5 seasons, he'll get a pass.

But anyway, you might be able to draft this DE like Bjoern Werner or Tank Carradine and he might become the next Ryan Kerrigan or Brandon Graham. Or you could draft him and he could be the next Robert Ayers.

As for Eifert, you're right he's not going to come in and set the world on fire. He's going to only play about 300-400 snaps this year as a rookie. But what he is, assuming he gets comfortable in the offense fairly quickly is a better 4th option in the passing game than Harry Douglas. And when Gonzalez walks away next year, he's going to be the starter, and very well could be as good as Gonzalez was here in ATL in the very near future.

He's no Gronk? If you had seen Gronk play at Arizona and then watched Eifert play at Notre Dame, then I think you might realize there isn't a lot of difference. For the record, Eifert is the highest rated TE prospect I've had since Gronk. IIRC I gave Gronk a draft grade of 7.2, while Eifert gets a 7.0 from me.

Look, nobody is complaining about Mr Zolciak. But he is not an 'impact' player. We have (maybe) ONE Impact DE. We have one impact CB. Then we have guys like Biermann and McClain. Our first pick simply must be on D, or you can kiss Nolan goodbye next year. I sure wouldn't stay in the kitchen trying to make chicken salad out of chickensh*t.

But we have plenty of IMPACT players already on offense, and we dont need to 'gamble' on a guy like Ty Ty. Or, Zach Ertz...And by 'gamble' I mean hope Biermann becomes an impact player. We do not 'need' a guy who at best will be the 5th option, because TG might be gone next year.

To trade up or get this guy @#30 is silly. Look at his stats. He gets great numbers vs patsies. I watched the Championship game, the reason he got 6 for 61 is because that team had no business ( 42-14!) even being there, Bama's D completely shut down thier deep threats, the only other option was running or TE. Garbage time stats. And, he struggled vs Bama, the closest thing to the NFL in college football. Puh-leeze.. Bama was already up by 14 when he got his first reception. If Gronk 2.0 played in the SEC, his numbers would not be that good. If TG wasn't on the team, then I might be more willing to gamble. But, we have more pressing needs.

If TD is as enamored with Ty Ty, and jumps to get him, that will be a mistake. (Now, cue the obvious retort 'Trust TD, look at what he has done so far'. )

Eifert isn't really a gamble, is my point. You can be fairly certain (although you can never be 100% with the draft), that you're getting a guy that is a very good fit for this offense and could supplant Gonzalez.

Taking the best defensive player available isn't necessarily a good choice, especially if you wind taking the next Lawrence Jackson or Kyle Wilson. That's my point. Let's say you take a defensive player, and he's just an above average starter. How much better did you make your defense? Marginally. The Falcons don't need anymore defenders the caliber of Curtis Lofton, Thomas DeCoud, and Dunta Robinson. They need guys that can make impact plays.

And if Eifert is going to be an impact player at TE for the next 7 years, even if that means his contributions as a rookie may be smaller than a defensive starter, why is that a bad decision?

For the record, I don't think the Falcons would take Eifert, although I would like him to be.

And it's not SEC hatin. It's reality. The SEC is the best conference, but the "disparity" in talent between it and other conferences is vastly overrated by most. The secret of the SEC isn't quality over others, but quantity of good players. It's produced 3 good NFL tight ends in the past 15 years: Jason Witten, Randy McMichael, and Aaron Hernandez. Ben Watson, Jared Cook, and Jacob Tamme are the next best. Put Notre Dame's best 3: Kyle Rudolph, John Carlson, and Anthony Fasano against them, and the entire SEC has produced just 3 more starting NFL tight ends than just Notre Dame. Add Kelce from Cincinnati to go along with Brent Celek, and then throw in Rutgers (L.J. Smith), then you see that patsies like Rutgers, Notre Dame, and Cincinnati = Alabama, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Arkansas, Ole Miss, Kentucky, Vanderbilt, LSU, Mississippi State, South Carolina, and Auburn combined.

You constantly hear about the depth of the SEC when discussing other schools, particularly NQ schools. What that means is that every SEC school is going to have around 6-20 NFL caliber players on their roster at a given time. While a top school from say the MAC or mid-tier program from the Big East might have 3-4. Just because you play in the SEC doesn't necessarily mean you're better than the MAC/Big East guy (see Eli Manning vs. Ben Roethlisberger), just that there are more good players on the next tier.

Eifert isn't really a gamble, is my point. You can be fairly certain (although you can never be 100% with the draft), that you're getting a guy that is a very good fit for this offense and could supplant Gonzalez.

And if Eifert is going to be an impact player at TE for the next 7 years, even if that means his contributions as a rookie may be smaller than a defensive starter, why is that a bad decision?.

this is a very easy answer. The only way that taking a TE at #30 OR ( SHUDDER) trading up is going to be a 'good decision', is if the entire coaching staff changes thier philosophy this year. That means Smitty and co. have to move to more of a 2 TE scheme, similar to what the Pats and other teams utilize. Simply out, that ain't gonna happen. This team will remain a ground and pound with a deep threat kind of team. DK doesn't scheme like that and probably never will. So jumping up to get a TE who isn't the best blocker, when that's really what we need, at the expense of the Defense is not wise.

Eifert or Ertz or Kelce will not come in here and match TG's skillset. TG isn't going to pull a Joe Horn, either. For this reason, we would be smart to pick the BPA on D at 30, or trade down.

Fun gus, I could go all day with you on this issue. But it's not as big a shift in philosophy as you think. Koetter used 2 TEs quite a bit at ASU, so much so that he was expected to install the same in J-ville, but Greg Jones was such a good FB that he never fully adopted it.

Drafting is about targeting players, not positions. And if Eifert is the best player, then why wouldn't you take him? If he's an 8 out of 10, and the best player available on defense is a 6 out of 10, then why is it a bad decision to take Eifert.

It's clear that you don't believe Eifert is an 8 out of 10, which is fine. You're entitled to that opinion, even if I think it's an opinion based entirely off superficial reasons (i.e. he didn't play in the SEC). I mean I recall that exact same rhetoric when people said we should have taken Andre Woodson over Matt Ryan back during the leadup to the '08 draft. And then I was accused of being a SEC hater too.

I'm not against staying at 30 and taking the best defensive player available. But if the Falcons do trade up to get Eifert, I'll understand exactly why they did it, and there is sound logic behind it. The simple fact is that this team is as good as it's offense is going to be. That is what is prompting many like you to believe that going defense in Round 1 is the prudent move to try and bolster that unit. But short of this team drafting the next J.J. Watt, Von Miller, or Clay Matthews, it's unlikely that even if the Falcons used all 11 picks on defense, it's going to make that unit into a top-level unit.

So if you are a team trying to vie for a Super Bowl, why not try to make your sole strength stronger? Eifert was used quite a bit on the outside at Notre Dame. You could put him in a similar role as an H-back and have him act as a movable chess piece akin to what the Patriots do with Hernandez. Make him into a guy that opposing defenses are going to have to try and account for, meanwhile you have players like Tony Gonzalez, Roddy White, and Julio Jones to contend with. It's the idea that you have 4 really, really good weapons that can consistently create mismatches whenever they are on the field.

Also with the mind that next year when Gonzo retires, if Eifert can step in, your offense isn't going to skip a beat. Because again, guess what? Your defense is still probably only going to be average again in 2014. And then in 2015 when Roddy isn't re-signed, you still have to two top-notch weapons in Julio & Eifert that along with Matt Ryan you can build the core of your offense around. Matt Ryan will be 30, Julio 26, and Eifert 25. Presumably from that point on, you could conceivably have your offense built around those guys for the next 5-7 years. So if you select Eifert, potentially you've solidified your offense for the next 10 seasons.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum